User Tag List

First 67891018 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 209

  1. #71
    IRL is not real Cimarron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Posts
    3,424

    Default

    Whatever, I'm going to drop it. You seem to understand the limits and applications of your statements, so I won't bother heckling you about strict conditions. To clarify, I was thinking of the entire human race. Maybe I should have been more careful about what specifically I was considering.
    You can't spell "justice" without ISTJ.

  2. #72
    Tenured roisterer SolitaryWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 so/sx
    Posts
    3,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mempy View Post
    I do call myself agnostic. But if the criteria for being agnostic is simply admitting you don't know for sure, I think technically everyone in the world is an agnostic, because nobody CAN know.
    You know, just like noone can know if there are 2000 lb purple mice living on the moon. So, write me down as agnostic about that one.
    "Do not argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." -- Mark Twain

    “No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money.”---Samuel Johnson

    My blog: www.randommeanderings123.blogspot.com/

  3. #73
    Mamma said knock you out Mempy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,226

    Default

    I didn't think anyone else knew about the purple mice religion!

    And I will. I'm one too.

    But anyone who claims to know whether they really do exist on the moon is just going on faith, not proof. Don't let them fool you!
    They're running just like you
    For you, and I, wooo
    So people, people, need some good ol' love

  4. #74
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueWing View Post
    You know, just like noone can know if there are 2000 lb purple mice living on the moon. So, write me down as agnostic about that one.
    The big difference between 2000 lb purple mice living on the moon and a deity would be that one is falsifiable and the other is not. Which is, IMO, a better platform from which to attack belief in a deity, although it only shows it to be unscientific, not untrue. And I think most reasonable people acknowledge that religion has no place in scientific matters.
    The one who buggers a fire burns his penis
    -anonymous graffiti in the basilica at Pompeii

  5. #75
    Mamma said knock you out Mempy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    2,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy
    The big difference between 2000 lb purple mice living on the moon and a deity would be that one is falsifiable and the other is not.
    Also true. I was going to say that, but I opted for the playful route instead.
    They're running just like you
    For you, and I, wooo
    So people, people, need some good ol' love

  6. #76
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mempy View Post
    That doesn't really negate my point, though. My point is that you have to understand why religion is so useful, helpful and meaningful to so many individuals.
    Yes, yes, and can also justify any action, in the mind of a true believer. Genocide, for example.

    I know most religious people on the board are peaceful, but in a theoretical argument on The Practical Benefits of Religion (Which shouldn't be argued anyway, that's not what faith is about), I'll gladly provide the counterpoint.

  7. #77
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    How can atheism be considered deep? By its very nature it's less than shallow, because it describes a lack of belief. If an ocean is deep, and a puddle is shallow then what is a desert?
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  8. #78
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,910

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Didums View Post
    I've shown that agnosticism by definition can never be the correct stance to take, it is a self-contradictory position.
    I am sorry, but this one of the most inaccurate things I've ever heard in the entire discussion of religion. If you think that agnosticism is self-contradictory, then you do not understand the purpose of agnosticism. I am stating that people do not know, and never will know. As it so happens, people do not know... and I'm betting my money that people never will know.

    The proposition there is very simply and straight forward, and does not contradict itself. Further more, it is proven at least partly true, in a factual sense, already. The human race will have to end before we can know if all of the assertion is true.

    Much of your points about agnosticism being wrong were based on assumed premises, like for instance, that I believe in a dichotomy between the natural spiritual "realm" (and I believe in no such thing). I am pleading ignorance, though. That's not a fallacy. Appealing to ignorance is a fallacy, because you would be concluding something based on what you don't know. But I am, perhpas better put, conceding to ignorance. I have no way of knowing, so I don't know. That's just reasonable. A wise person should know when to say "I don't know".

    Quote Originally Posted by Didums View Post
    Agnosticism does not lead to any sort of discovery because it pleads that we'll never know enough to make an educated conclusion. Atleast by taking a Theistic or Atheistic position we can actually learn about the universe because we make an effort to do so, in these positions we try to gather observations and see if they fit or do not fit the idea of God, it is progress towards a conclusion.
    Baseless assertion once more. I'm very interested in studdying a lot of things. The particular subject of God however, is an unenlightening waste of time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Didums View Post
    Statements like "God exists" are either true or false, they cannot be Neither. Agnosticism holds that the statement "God exists" can neither be true nor false, which is fundamentally the wrong approach.
    That's a real bastardization of epistemological thinking, right there. Agnosticism holds no such impliciations. Any agnostic knows that one of the two statements, there is or isn't a God, must be true. However, the main point is that regardless of which one is fact, humans will never, ever, know. That's very important. There is a reality here, but the problem is that it will be known. Is that clear? The word agnostic means "without knowing".

    Quote Originally Posted by Didums View Post
    O really? Well last time I checked we're on our way to a theory that unifies quantum mechanics and general relativity, which would be one step closer having a grand-theory of the universe. We're a clever species contrary to popular belief, just not All of us are, but the individuals that are definitely know how to find these kinds of things out and pass the knowledge down to us. Think about how much knowledge has been amassed so recently, and how much more we will obtain in the future.
    Questions about creators of the universe, or meaning of life, or crap like that, will not be answered because they are subjects which, by their nature, transcend evidence. That's one of the most important things to consider here. One of the reasons this debate is dumb, is people are arguing about something so fundamental in power, that it defines existence, and therefore defines the idea of what is or isn't relevant reasoning or decent proof. There are some mysteries of the universe that will always be mysteries. The unified theory is probably not one of them, but I think you're very foolish if you think that's really a step to basically solving existence.

    Have you ever heard the theory about how we cannot objectively study the mind? The reason we can never truly do it, is that every human being has to use their mind to study anything. Therefore, we can't understand anything about the mind that require an outside perspective. These questions about the fundamental workings of existence suffer from the same problem.


    Quote Originally Posted by Didums View Post
    It is probably the most important source of conflict in the history of the human race, a world without religion is more unified than one divided by religion.
    1) That's probably an over-statement of it's importance. And even if it is, my point is that it shouldn't be, and it's not something I just blame on the religious, it is something I blame on the doggedly unreligious as well. Let it go, like me. Then there'd be no conflict over this.
    2) A world without religion would be slightly more unified. So would a world with everyone belieiving one particular religion. Never the less, the world would still be divided by race, culture, ethnicity, language, region, philosophy anf so fourth. Could you possibly get rid of all of those differences? Would you want to?

    Quote Originally Posted by Didums View Post
    Reread that and promise never to say it again. Howabout we concede ignorance to Everything? Wouldn't that be great? We don't know how Anything works at all!!! I never thought that I'd see the words Wise and Ignorance used together...
    Strawman... I'm hardly telling people to ignore everything. I am telling people to understand that some particular subjects, often by way of the perameters that define them, are hopeless causes. I repeat that I have never advocated a total halt of inquiry. I think you are failing to acknowledge very basic concepts of philosophy here. You are failing to account for plain old fallibalism and unknowability. I've never seen anyone do that before.

    So have at it. What happens when an irresistable force collides with an unmovable object? By your philosophy, I expect you to spend a very long time trying to answer this...
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  9. #79
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ivy View Post
    The big difference between 2000 lb purple mice living on the moon and a deity would be that one is falsifiable and the other is not. Which is, IMO, a better platform from which to attack belief in a deity, although it only shows it to be unscientific, not untrue. And I think most reasonable people acknowledge that religion has no place in scientific matters.
    The statement 'there exists a 2000lb purple mouse living on the moon' is actually unfalsifiable, that is, it is not contradicted by any observation. It is always possible that it exists somewhere, because the entire moon cannot be checked at once. That said, the nonexistence of a 2000lb purple mouse living on the moon can be inferred from the facts and laws which we assume everyday: mice evolved on earth, have not developed spaceships, and in the absence of oxygen would not be living for very long.

    Anyway, statements are either true or false, but not both or neither. Assuming that truth is the goal, while theism and atheism might be true, agnosticism is never true, and therefore, is always the wrong choice.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  10. #80
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    agnosticism is never true, and therefore, is always the wrong choice.
    Bayes would be most offended.

    So, do you believe in aliens?

Similar Threads

  1. [NF] Why Do NFs Apologize So Much?
    By Totenkindly in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 228
    Last Post: 09-25-2017, 02:49 AM
  2. Why Taiwan's relationship with Japan is so different from Korea's
    By Abendrot in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-22-2017, 06:26 AM
  3. Why Science is so Hard to Believe
    By Hard in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 156
    Last Post: 03-17-2015, 03:38 PM
  4. So, Why Are You Up So Early/Late?
    By RansomedbyFire in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 09-21-2007, 03:01 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO